RMA Changes, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

The National Party’s agendas never change, less
government and regulations and more freedom for employers and businesses (regardless
of the social and environmental impacts) is what they desire. These goals will
negatively impinge on most voters, so they have to be framed in a way that
hides their true intent.

This National Government enthusiastically
embraces the neoliberal approach of using real or created crises to justify
ideological but largely unnecessary changes. We saw it with the cuts in
services in ACC, school closures in Christchurch, attacks on beneficiaries and
the fast-tracked anti-terrorism legislation.

The government has also fabricated crises to
shift attention away from other more pressing concerns (child poverty,
diabetes) and create solutions for problems when neither is supported by strong
evidence. Using clever framing and minimal detail it also makes it difficult
for the opposition who can be seen as being petty and obstructive when urgent
action is apparently needed.

We see this happening again with Nick Smith’s
proposed changes to the RMA. We know that changes to this act are part of
National’s agenda but their past attempts at limiting the environmental protections
inherent in the legislation were even opposed by their coalition partners in
the last term.

"Core environmental
matters that currently have the status of 'matters of national importance' will
be downgraded to mere 'matters'."Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former architect of
the Act.

This time a real crisis has been used to
justify changes to the ACT, and the Government has decided that a case can be
made for the RMA being responsible for the lack of affordable housing.

Anyone conversant with the housing crisis will
be aware that non-resident investors, unrestrained property speculation, the
high costs of building materials, land banking, growing inequity and the
Government’s lack of investment in social housing are also major contributors. National
does not want to limit wealth creation and developer profits, so it is
conveniently left with the argument that it is unnecessary bureaucracy alone
that needs attention.

Again clever framing is used in pointing the
finger at the RMA, as most of us have some experience of unnecessary
bureaucracy in building compliance. We probably forget many of the current
compliance issues evolved from a past National Government’s legislation
tinkering that resulted in the $11.3 billion leaky building debacle. Local bodies
have become very risk averse as a consequence and this has added more to
bureaucracy than anything that can be directly attributed to the RMA.

“The RMA’s fundamental purpose is to make sure that the
environmental effects are taken into consideration when decisions are being
made about using our resources. It is not, and should not become, an economic
development act!”Dr Jan Wright,
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

While not denying some changes to the RMA may
be helpful we need to keep things in perspective. According to Auckland Mayor Len
Brown, 98% of his city’s consents are managed on time and New Zealand is still
ranked 3rd in the world for ease of doing business. Yet the
Government has managed to gain cautious support from local bodies and the Labour
Party for changes to the RMA because when the detail is minimal, and the
heavily spun public justification is convincing, it is politic to do so.

Smith’s claims of the unnecessary costs placed
on developers sound substantial but are not broken down in any meaningful way
and his use of the Motu report was disingenuous. Many of the costs claimed
unnecessary by developers may actually be very necessary for managing environmental
consequences or ensuring any development doesn’t have a negative visual impact.
When developing new areas of low cost housing we don’t want to create modern
soulless ghettos, that are profitable to construct but terrible to live in, as
we have in the past.

“The Motu report does not balance the costs of planning
regulations with the benefits of building houses well...“Gutting the RMA will
lead to ugly, sprawling suburbs, higher levels of traffic congestion, and the
loss of the natural environment we love and have fought to protect.”Julie
Anne Genter, Green MP

We
need to be fully aware of the true intent of this Government’s attack on the
RMA and not be blindsided by their cynical manipulation of the evidence and a
real crisis to achieve their goals. The RMA is not an impediment to sustainable
and environmentally responsible developments, it is an impediment to irresponsible
development and greed...and so it should be!

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The latest Unicef report has us languishing at the bottom of the developed world in relation to the health and welfare our children and youth. This report was based on the data our government collects and concerningly, with regards to child poverty, a ranking wasn't provided because of a refusal to follow standard practice (an admission of failure?). In many documented areas we are seriously neglecting our young people (ranking numbers are determined by the data provided from a maximum of 41 developed countries):Child Poverty (41/41?) I consider that we must be by far the worst in the developed world for child poverty when the Government refuses to use the same measures as other countries so that we can be ranked. Our Children's Commissioner and the Child Poverty Monitor currently state that 14% of our children suffer from material hardship. We have a much higher threshold to determine this and require 7 elements to recognise hardship, while most other countries use only two.…

Mark Richardson, a former New Zealand cricketer and media personality, has made a valuable contribution by asking the "frilly undie crowd" to "shut up listen" to his latest attempt at mansplaining motherhood and parenting.

Richardson acknowledged that it was hard work but had the view that it is simply a fact of life and what we have to do, but can't be considered a job.

I can understand his flawed reasoning that being a mum does not fit the normal definitions of a job: there is no formal employment process to take it on; no job description provided; no agreement to sign; no holidays or sick days provided and it certainly isn't automatically paid. However, by not viewing it as a job and a hugely valuable one at that, it has meant that it has little status or recognition. There is no training or qualifications needed to be a mother and it generally isn't considered useful to include on a CV under 'wor…

Given the city's relatively static population the National Government chose Invercargill as one of the cities to lead its state housing asset sell off in 2015. In the 1980s the region had over 800 state houses and after continuous divestment, the remaining 360 were to be sold to a private or NGO social housing provider. At that time only a handful of people in Invercargill were on Housin…